When a tree falls, is there debris removal coverage?

Coverage Q&A

An outdoor property coverage extension expands coverage to trees and tree debris removal expenses, but only for such specific causes of loss as fire, lightning, explosion, riot or civil commotion, or aircraft. (Photo: iStock)

Analysis brought to you by the experts at FC&S Online, the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more — or to have YOUR coverage question answered — visit the National Underwriter website, or contact the editors via Twitter: @FCSbulletins.

1) Under forms CP 0010 (10 12) and CP 0017 (10 12), is the expense covered even if the covered property didn't suffer any loss or damage?

2) What would the applicable deductible (if any) be if the insured has a $250 deductible for Special Form except 2% windstorm deductible for building and business personal property?

3) If the insured has additional debris removal insurance (with a $50,000 limit), is coverage provided and what’s the applicable deductible?

— Puerto Rico Subscriber

Answer: 1) Debris removal under CP 00 10 10 12 extends property coverage to include the expense of removing debris only of covered property caused by or resulting from a covered cause of loss. Under Property Not Covered, item q.(2) excludes trees, shrubs and plants from coverage, except as provided under the coverage extensions.

The outdoor property coverage extension expands coverage to trees and tree debris removal expenses, but only for such specific causes of loss as fire, lightning, explosion, riot or civil commotion, or aircraft. Therefore, removal of debris from trees blown by a windstorm is not covered unless the blown trees damage other covered property insured against windstorm.

2) If the trees did not damage other covered property, then there is no coverage. Therefore, the windstorm or hail deductible would not apply.

If there was damage to other covered property, then the 2% windstorm deductible would apply separately to each damaged building; to the personal property at each building; and to loss or damage of personal property in the open. The deductibles would apply to each windstorm occurrence.

3) The Debris Removal Additional Insurance CP 04 15 10 12 provides an additional amount for the coverage in CP 00 10. It does not provide additional coverage, just a higher limit. The applicable property or windstorm deductible would apply since this is not separate coverage, but simply an increase of the limit provided under CP 00 10.

Removing a tree that lands on a roof

Question: On the HO 3 form, the policy provides $500 for tree debris removal per tree with $1,000 total coverage per occurrence.

The question is: Does the HO 3 policy cover the cost to remove the tree or tree limbs from the “covered structure” separate from the cost to remove the tree “debris” from the “residence premises” assuming the tree landed on building?

Consider this hypothetical tree service invoice, without consideration of deductible:

Remove tree limbs from roof of structure:

$250

Cut tree limbs and tree trunk into small pieces:

$3,000

Wood Chipper to chop tree:

$500

Remove wood chips (including truck and disposal fees):

$450

TOTAL INVOICE:

$4,200

Would the company owe $500 (debris removal limit for one tree) or would the company owe $750.00 (debris removal limit plus cost to remove tree from structure)?

— North Carolina Subscriber

Answer: We’ve always been of the opinion that removing the tree from the structure is part of the repair of the structure and is separate from debris removal. The structure cannot be repaired until the tree and other debris is removed. Debris removal is intended to remove the tree from the yard to get it out of the insured’s way, and to get it off of the driveway or away from blocking other access to the property.

Removing a tree from a damaged structure is part of the repair of that structure and is separate from debris removal. Here, Pastor Michael Williams cuts branches from a wind blown tree on Monday, May 1, 2017, that fell on a family members home in Durant, Miss. Williams and members of his church helped remove tree debris from the structure. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)

Debris removal on a dwelling property 3 form

Question: The Lloyd's of London representative is telling me the debris removal extension on the DP3 form only provides coverage within policy limits. My interpretation is the extension is 10% additional coverage not to exceed $25,000. Who is correct?

DEBRIS REMOVAL ENDORSEMENT

THIS ENDORSEMENT CONTAINS PROVISIONS WHICH MAY LIMIT OR PREVENT RECOVERY UNDER THIS CERTIFICATE FOR LOSS WHERE COSTS OR EXPENSES FOR DEBRIS REMOVAL ARE INCURRED.

Nothing contained in this Endorsement shall override any Seepage and/or Pollution and/or Contamination Exclusion or any

Radioactive Contamination Exclusion or any other Exclusion applicable to this Certificate.

Any Provision within this Certificate (or within any other Endorsement which forms part of this Certificate) which insures debris

removal is canceled and replaced by the following:

1) In the event of direct physical damage to or destruction of property, for which Underwriters hereon agree to pay, or

which but for the application of a deductible or underlying amount they would agree (hereinafter referred to as 'Damage or Destruction'), this Certificate also insures, within the sum insured, subject to the limitations and method of calculation below, and to all the other terms and conditions of the Certificate, costs or expenses;

(a) which are reasonably and necessarily incurred by the Assured in the removal, from the premises of the Assured at

which the Damage or Destruction occurred, of debris which results from the Damage or Destruction; and

(b) of which the Assured becomes aware and advises the amount thereof to Underwriters hereon within one year of the

commencement of such Damage or Destruction.

2) In calculating the a mount, if any, payable under this Certificate for loss where costs or expenses for removal of debris

are incurred by the Assured (subject to the limitations in paragraph 1 above):

(a) the maximum amount of such costs or expenses that c n be included in the method of calculation set out in ( b)

(b) the amount of such costs or expenses as limited in (a) above shall be added to:

(i) the amount of the Damage or Destruction; and

(ii) all other amounts of loss, which arise as a result of the same occurrence, and for which Underwriters hereon also agree to pay, or which but for the application of a deductible or underlying amount they would agree to pay and the resulting sum shall be the amount to which any deductible or underlying amount to which this Certificate is subject and the limit (or applicable sub-limit) of this Certificate, shall be applied.

— Wisconsin Subscriber

Answer: The loss settlement provision states that the settlement is the greater of $25,000 or 10% of the amount of damage or destruction from which the loss results. For example, if the loss was $100,000 then payment would be for the greater of $10,000 (10 percent of the loss) or $25,000. This overrides the policies standard debris removal clause, and states that the amount of such coverage shall be added to (emphasis added) the amount of damage or destruction and all other amounts of loss less the deductible. Therefore, the debris coverage should be above the coverage A limit. It’s not really clear, and the insured always get the benefit of the doubt.

Debris removal, demolition and resulting hole

Question:The insured suffered a total loss to their residence. The insurance company has agreed to cover the cost of demolition, however, they refuse to pay for the cost to fill and grade the hole left by the demo and debris removal. The insured is insured under a HO 0005 (10/00). The insurance company has taken the position that the fill is a claim for land and land is excluded under the policy. It is our position that the "land" exclusion applies to claims for damages to land. We are not claiming damage to land; rather we need to back fill the hole as part of the debris removal. I feel it should be covered for several reasons. (1) the land exclusion does not apply to fill (2) the insured is required to fill in the hole under the policy to protect the property from further damage (i.e. someone falling in the hole and getting injured resulting in a liability claim) and (3) because filling in the hole is required by local law and ordinance. The insured does have coverage for law and ordinance.

— Michigan Subscriber

Answer: You are right in that the exclusion for land is for damage to land, not ensuing damage that is part of the repair. The building must be torn down before it can be reconstructed, and the hole caused by the demolition must be filled. This is all part of restoring the insured to his original position, the principle of indemnity. If a family of woodchucks had burrowed under the ground to where it collapsed leaving a gaping hole that would be excluded; that's damage to the land.

Analysis brought to you by the experts at FC&S Online, the unquestioned authority on insurance coverage interpretation and analysis for the P&C industry. To find out more — or to have YOUR coverage question answered — visit the National Underwriter website, or contact the editors via Twitter: @FCSbulletins.